The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 5 redirects but no actual song articles as expected. Richhoncho (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not containing any content outside of redirects. SFB 23:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains two template talk pages (one of them for a template currently at TFD). The category text says the category is for Wikipedia essays, but there are currently no essays (or talk pages of essays) in the category. DexDor (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The starred model has no current relevance, hence no real content. I think it's also worth discussing the usage of impact ratings on essays at Category:Wikipedia essays by impact. This doesn't seem to match up with how essays are meant to be judged in relation to guidelines and policies. SFB 13:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support per current article and parents. No comment on the benefits of creator vs. inventor. SFB 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current term is 'constructed language', not 'invented language'. The latter was formerly used but is not current. I think it's better to use the term that matches current usage. However, I think there's no harm to having a redirect from one to the other, so that both work. --Sai¿?✍ 17:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support both. I have added Arturo Alfandari to Category:Neo (constructed language), so now it has two articles and one subcategory with one article, and I'm afraid that's all we are ever going to have in this category. In my opinion this is overcategorization: if we starting doing this for every constructed language with an article about it, an article about its author and perhaps one third article, it's going to be a mess. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu? 16:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The translation is definitely notable, that's absolutely true, and the same goes for the person who made it. However, this information would be much better off in the corresponding articles, because at present neither Neo (constructed language) nor Ralph Midgley mention it at all. Categories are an excellent tool for finding articles, but they should not be used for giving additional information that is not given in those articles. If category Neo is kept, it will contain only three articles: one about the language, one about its author and one about the translator. If the latter two are already mentioned in the article about Neo – where they belong! – then there is simply no need anymore for a special subcategory for subjects relating to it, especially since it is highly unlikely this subcategory is going to grow. —IJzeren JanUszkiełtu? 00:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason to edit the articles. Not a reason to delete the category. I don't see a reason for deleting the category. "It will not grow" doesn't seem to be a reason. And you never know, perhaps the notable translation will encourage others to write in Neo. The category helps people find stuff. Where is it written that categories have to be large, or growing? -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded Nomination to include subcategory and tagged it. (@Koavf:, if I'm hijacking your nomination in a way you don't agree with, let me know and I'll run this as a separate nomination.) RevelationDirect (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The material present (people) is better dealt with in prose on those articles which can properly contextualise why they are so grouped. Ralph Midgley is particularly ambiguous in his inclusion given no statements about Neo in the article. Categories for translators of small constructed languages are not very useful either given their naturally small to non-existent scope. SFB 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've just made a statement of opinion as though it were a fact. Categories are useful to anyone making use of the encyclopaedia. Deleting them just removes a resource for future researchers. And that resource really costs nothing. (I think the category for translators is indeed unnecessary for this language though.) -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works License[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support per intent and my previous comments about this topic. @DexDor: can you double check the license namings? I'm finding CC BY-ND, not CC-ByND. SFB 23:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted at 2015 FEB 3 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
